How, if at all, historically significant would a Sanders v. Trump general be?

speakhandsforme

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
7,386
Reaction score
0
I was just thinking this while at the bar earlier this afternoon. Although I'm fairly young (in regard to American voters) I can't remember two viable candidates for the two primary nominations being reportedly at odds with their respective parties.

On the right, you have rumors of the Republican Party supposedly influencing private media to indict Donald Trump as a legitimate Republican candidate. On the other side of the aisle, you have the DNC very demonstrably aiming to limit Bernie Sanders' exposure by way of limiting and delaying Democratic debates.

Is this of any significance to the stability of the two-party system? Or is this simply optimistic speculation?

Discuss.
 
It would really spell out that class warfare is the main issue this election and would show that voters are sick of the 'two sides of the same turd' system that Murkan politics has become.
 
It would be the most awesome election eva
 
Would be a retread of '05...

043490-4608a0b4-ffeb-11e2-a0b8-f32e1613e1fc.jpg
 
It would really spell out that class warfare is the main issue this election and would show that voters are sick of the 'two sides of the same turd' system that Murkan politics has become.

I agree. Sanders is a legitimate "left wing" guy. Much more-so than Obama, despite all the Republican attempts to portray him as one. Trump is closer politically to the establishment republicans, but he just doesn't give a fuck what he says, which is getting him support. I would actually love to see that election play out.
 
The two party system has essentially turned into the 1 party system when you have Clinton vs Bush II being pushed down our throats with the two families already holding office for 20 of the last 28 years (Sr was VP for another 8).
 
I think Trump's popularity is symptomatic of the confrontational/obstructionist nature of how our national politics have gotten. That to me is the real problem.

If you think politics aren't important, many of the world's worst case countries' problems are largely political. We aren't immune to that.
 
I was just thinking this while at the bar earlier this afternoon. Although I'm fairly young (in regard to American voters) I can't remember two viable candidates for the two primary nominations being reportedly at odds with their respective parties.

I would say that by definition the person who gets the nomination is not at odds with his or her party. There have been acrimonious primary fights (though I wouldn't even say that the current Democratic one falls into that category, and Trump has an air of bullshit that makes it hard to see real hatred there either) and surprising wins before.

On the right, you have rumors of the Republican Party supposedly influencing private media to indict Donald Trump as a legitimate Republican candidate. On the other side of the aisle, you have the DNC very demonstrably aiming to limit Bernie Sanders' exposure by way of limiting and delaying Democratic debates.

???

Is this of any significance to the stability of the two-party system? Or is this simply optimistic speculation?

Discuss.

I've been thinking for a while that the GOP has to crack. The basic problem is that they're getting votes based on identity politics, but their platforms really haven't offered anything that regular voters want. Even Republican voters don't widely support cuts to entitlement programs (SS and Medicare, especially), are mostly OK with more-progressive taxation, etc. While last time, the GOP was running on eliminating estate taxes (only affects people inheriting more than $5M), cutting capital-gains taxes (an insignificant portion of income for all but the richest Americans), killing Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Shit that an insignificant portion of the electorate really wants. Trump is giving them the identity politics (in spades) while also talking about policy that the base can actually get excited about. He's going to lose, of course, and I doubt the eventual winner (Rubio or Bush--I had been thinking Walker would take it, but he's Perrying himself out) will be in a position to absorb the lessons, but I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP ran a candidate more in line with other conservative parties in the West in 2020 (hardline on immigration, fiscally conservative, accepting of universal healthcare and old-age pensions, but tight with discretionary spending).

As for Sanders, he's a symptom more than a cause. The left has been vindicated in an incredible way in the past few years, and as a result, Democrats are feeling more confident about a leftward move. It won't get Sanders a win, but there really isn't any big ideological difference between him and the eventual winner anyway. What I worry about is that I think there's a pattern where people want a particular type of change, elect someone to implement it, and then it gets attacked, and some people who previously wanted it believe the attacks (whether they're true or not is irrelevant), and the pendulum swings the other way.
 
I think Trump would beat Sanders because it's would be the unabashed, unapologetic capitalist billionaire vs the self-described socialist. Trump would sell it as Americana Capitalism vs Euro-styled Socialism if not outright Red Scare Communism.
 
Back
Top